Aspect Ratio discussion for Magnificent Obsession

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Bob Furmanek
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:59 am

#126 Post by Bob Furmanek » Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:00 pm

I think what's not well known - or is simply misunderstood - is how quickly the transition to widescreen took place. I've read the trades on a daily basis throughout this period (Daily Variety is particularly useful) and it was very much a revolution within both production and exhibition techniques. Examination of the various studio files bear this out as well.

Thanks for posting those images. To my eye, those screen-grabs indicate the film should not be shown in the standard ratio.

I would also like to point out that video and DVD releases (as well as repertory screenings) are not to be considered gospel so far as their accuracy.

As I mentioned earlier with my experience at the 1.37 presentation of THE BLOB, projectionists and telecine operators see a full frame image and assume that it's all meant to be seen.

poohbear
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:35 am

#127 Post by poohbear » Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:29 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:All of this was well known before this discussion kicked off. I don't want to sound facetious, but it sounds like you're aiming for an "aha!" moment, where the 1.37 camp realizes "It's true, they really did compose MO for widescreen!"
Seriously, could you just admit you were wrong so we can move on? Bob has already shot down all of your theories with real evidence. This thread is going around in an endless circle.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#128 Post by HerrSchreck » Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:33 pm

Theakston was saying just the opposite-- that telecine operators so frequently crimp in and chop edges off of film frames, you can't make judgements even when "properly" framed.

Anyway, the whole idea of this thread is based on-- and the sophistication level of the cinephiles around here certainly acknowledges-- the fact that dvd producers quite often get it wrong.

What I find most interesting is this: CC is rare in that they secure, for the most part, their own prints and run their own telecine.. whereas most labels are distribution houses who encode a digibeta and may produce a booklet and or regional extras. In the case of MO, we have 3 instances of transfers most likely supplied to regional disc-producers around the world (Germany, France, and Australia, I believe) by Universal, with two different aspect ratios.

I could be wrong, but arent Carlotta and Madman simply encoding digital video provided to them by Universal? Do these guys acquire their own reels and run their own expensive telecine for their own regions? Doubtful.

Which leads to the issue of a visual schizophrenia on behalf of MO viz Universal.

If true, perhaps they're making both ratios available per the request of the distributors specifically requesting academy? Perhaps?

If not-- odd.

EDIT:
poohbear wrote:
HerrSchreck wrote:All of this was well known before this discussion kicked off. I don't want to sound facetious, but it sounds like you're aiming for an "aha!" moment, where the 1.37 camp realizes "It's true, they really did compose MO for widescreen!"
Seriously, could you just admit you were wrong so we can move on? Bob has already shot down all of your theories with real evidence. This thread is going around in an endless circle.
Winnie, go back to your honey jar. The majority of dvd releases so far, licensed from Uni, are in Academy. Enough to extend the question about the title beyond the bounds of this forum. The discussion is civil-- if you have nothing of value to say, don't troll.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#129 Post by Gregory » Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:46 pm

In response to this information about studio screenings: I'm not surprised in the least that the studio executives screened the rushes in 2:1, as this is the ratio they had recently begun trying to push at that time. And I never said that the film was never screened at 2:1 or that it looks glaringly, obviously wrong at 2:1. There have been some real straw-man arguments here, as Schreck's response already addressed.

As for whether heads are cut off, I don't know whether jsteffe's software cropped it to look just like the UK R2, but I see the frame going through the foreheads of standing figures throughout the film. Back on the first page of the thread, we see that in the scene where Helen is being consulted some of the doctors' heads are cut right off. It would be one thing if the doctors behind her were just standing there doing nothing, but they're speaking with her, repeatedly, with nothing above the mouth visible. These consultation scenes are important, of course, and doctors figure importantly in the conventions of melodrama. A similar thing happens in the scene where she finds out the doctors can't help her. Before leaving, she identifies Dr. Lehmann, who says to her, "My child, I'm so sorry," with his head is cut off right above the ear.

Often the widescreen frame gives the impression that the camera is moving too quickly for the actors' vertical movements. The camera will move down as someone is getting ready to sit down, leaving a large portion of their head out of the frame for a moment until they finish sitting down. Why is that a good thing?

We also lose certain subtle things like having Merrick appear in the frame at the same time as his mentor watches over him from above in an important shot near the end of the film. Here it is in full-frame:

Image

Instead, as the camera moves to the right and up, we see Merrick's head, then Dr. Giraud, but we lose the moment of seeing him positioned over Merrick as he begins to operate.

But, and I've tried to emphasize this from the outset, more is lost than tops of heads, and I think it's a mistake to think about this just in terms of where heads are places, (a) because we clearly have a film that was made with the knowledge that it would be projected in more than one ratio and (b) because this is a Sirk film, and objects and the geometrical use of space around characters is so important.

There's much more to it than whether people stay in the frame. I've acknowledged that there is more than in a film like All I Desire. There had to be, or else the film would look much more obviously wrong than it does in 2:1. Some of this headroom may be explained by Metty expecting it to be masked to 1.66 or 1.75, but 2:1 just seems way too extreme here.

So we have this space, which needed to be there so that the film could be presentable in widescreen in some venues; the question is what is happening in this space. Some of the time, nothing much, but at many other moments it plays an important compositional role.

I'm not pulling this stuff out of my proverbial, for anyone unfamiliar with the literature on Sirk who may be wondering. He was a very intellectual filmmaker who did not hesitate to comment, himself, on the way that objects such as doorways, windows, mirrors, flowers, various kinds of phallic symbols, etc. This is why Bob Furmanek's remark about bowing out to leave us to fantasize about the psychological meaning of table legs is fairly misguided. I don't mean to harp on that one statement, but I do feel like if I were to discuss phallic objects, for example, some would say (as Jack did) "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." What I want to say in response to that is, not often with Sirk is that the case.
Last edited by Gregory on Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Bob Furmanek
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:59 am

#130 Post by Bob Furmanek » Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:54 pm

I've recently worked with Universal on a DVD project. Their understanding of early widescreen - like most studios/copyright holders - is somewhat limited. The frustrating part is they initially doubted my evidence on two widescreen movies, from 1955 no less!

When I provided undisputable documentation, they finally admitted to being wrong. Unfortunately, they only had 1.37 transfers so that is what they'll release on DVD.

Using their mastering techniques as to any kind of evidence in support of the 1.37 transfer is pretty thin ice.

By the way, Mr. Theakston posts here with his own name as opposed to an alias.
Gregory wrote:Some of this headroom may be explained by Metty expecting it to be masked to 1.66 or 1.75, but 2:1 just seems way too extreme here.
My point to all of this research and documentation is to illustrate that Sirk and Metty had already done one widescreen film for the studio, and went into production of this film knowing how it would - and should - be shown.

For the record, those are two ratios which UI never used.
HerrSchreck wrote:Winnie, go back to your honey jar.

The discussion is civil-- if you have nothing of value to say, don't troll.
HerrSchreck: what's with the condescending attitude?

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#131 Post by HerrSchreck » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:05 pm

Bob Furmanek wrote:I've recently worked with Universal on a DVD project. Their understanding of early widescreen - like most studios/copyright holders - is somewhat limited. The frustrating part is they initially doubted my evidence on two widescreen movies, from 1955 no less!

When I provided undisputable documentation, they finally admitted to being wrong. Unfortunately, they only had 1.37 transfers so that is what they'll be released on DVD.

Using their mastering techniques as to any kind of evidence in support of the 1.37 transfer is pretty thin ice.

By the way, Mr. Theakston posts here with his own name as opposed to an alias.
What films were they, out of curiosity?

I'm absolutely with you on that-- what I see primarily nowadays (and I will say this goes against what you were saying about projectionists and telecine operators seeing a 1.37 neg and assuming it "all should be there") is a tendency towards the opposite: masking everything, be it in theaters (due to simple industrial standard & practice & habit) or telecine (due to the desire to have everything fit widescreen televisions, to widescreen. Sort've like the colorization process... the average viewer gets annoyed by the black bars on the sides of the tv, and thinks there's something ""wrong" with an academy frame. It was tough to see Gus Van Sants "Elephant" in academy, just due to industrial habit.

But I will say that it becomes difficult to discuss this with you-- and I mean this honestly and without any facetiousness at all-- when you question the validity of facts that go against your opinion of the images (for example, you can't "trust" Cortez' recollections about the Fuller shot in academy, you can't trust Universal's conclusions about MO, you can't trust telecine operators and projectionists and dvd producers) but yet, when you look at the same data that they do to reach a conclusion, you are the man to trust. Facts produced by you from Universal's files that can be extrapolated to a 2.0 conclusion are to be believes, but those who are in possession of those facts who conclude otherwise, are to be taken with a grain of salt.

This is why this title is so problematic. This goes far beyond the bounds of Bob or greg or Hare or Theakston-- none of whom are out of bounds and all of whom are intelligent men who love cinema passionately-- which is why I'm frankly confounded that a guy like Winnie or whoever that newb trolling above was could look at the global releases of this film, it's exhibition and projection in virtually every aspect ratio under the sun, regard any opinion viz this films shape (including academy) is anywhere near proven or settled.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#132 Post by Gregory » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:05 pm

Bob Furmanek wrote:
Some of this headroom may be explained by Metty expecting it to be masked to 1.66 or 1.75, but 2:1 just seems way too extreme here.
My point to all of this research and documentation is to illustrate that Sirk and Metty had already done one widescreen film for the studio, and went into production of this film knowing how it would - and should - be shown.

For the record, those are two ratios which UI never used.
Once again, I'll try to establish that we're talking about soft matting, so the projectionist has the final cut, as the saying goes. 1.66 and 1.75 were generally more common widescreen ratios in the mid-50s. We've already established that it took some time for theaters to be able to mask to widescreen and I think this is especially true for 2:1. My hunch about the filmmakers anticipating 1.66 or 1.75 being more common than is based on how amazingly tight and crowded it looks at 2:1 especially for a Sirk film.

I know you don't agree, because you apparently have no problem with tops of heads being chopped off, judging from what you wrote in response to the caps Schreck posted.

I know we're talking at cross purposes here, but I hoped you would do more than take one sentence out of my post.

User avatar
Bob Furmanek
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:59 am

#133 Post by Bob Furmanek » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:09 pm

We also lose certain subtle things like having Merrick appear in the frame at the same time as his mentor watches over him from above in an important shot near the end of the film. Here it is in full-frame:

Instead, as the camera moves to the right and up, we see Merrick's head, then Dr. Giraud, but we lose the moment of seeing him positioned over Merrick as he begins to operate.
Gregory: I agree with your point, but is that a panning shot? Also, have you considered the fact that this transfer may be zoomed in or not framed properly?

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

#134 Post by GringoTex » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:18 pm

Gregory wrote:I know you don't agree, because you apparently have no problem with tops of heads being chopped off, judging from what you wrote in response to the caps Schreck posted.
One head would be partly chopped in one cap. Kind of like this:

Image

Shreck's caps show a clumsy head space that is not typical of Sirk's mise-en-scene.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#135 Post by Gregory » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:18 pm

Gregory: I agree with your point, but is that a panning shot? Also, have you considered the fact that this transfer may be zoomed in or not framed properly?
I already acknowledged that it was a panning shot -- my analysis of the frame takes into account the motion of the camera and the result that it creates.

And yes, I've acknowledged in past posts (that you may or may not have read) that the R2 might be zoomed in a bit. I still feel like a little more around the edges would not save that transfer, and it does not really affect my points about the mise-en-scene of the film in academy.

Furthermore, I have no reason to hope that the framing of the Criterion will look different from the UK disc. Criterion actually has a history of cutting things too close, although maybe now they're more cautious of this.
See the DVDBeaver comparison of Criterion's Notorious disc compared to other releases, including the new MGM box set, for example. In one cap part of Ingrid Bergman's face is cut off on the right side.
(edited to insert quote)
Last edited by Gregory on Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#136 Post by Gregory » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:23 pm

GringoTex wrote:One head would be partly chopped in one cap.
No, I'm pretty sure Rock's head would be cut off in both the first and second one, though I'd have to break out the UK R2 again to see just what it looks like to be certain
Shreck's caps show a clumsy head space that is not typical of Sirk's mise-en-scene.
Well, I disagree completely. And I know I haven't provided an exhaustive, knock-down-drag-out analysis of Sirkian mise-en-scene (a tall order), but I've tried to be a lot more specific than these mere assertions you've made a couple of times here.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#137 Post by HerrSchreck » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:23 pm

Bob Furmanek wrote:
Winnie, go back to your honey jar.

The discussion is civil-- if you have nothing of value to say, don't troll.
HerrSchreck: what's with the condescending attitude?
Bob, needless to say, if someone from the "academy side" came on and simply said "Bob, seriously, could you just admit you're wrong? Schreck shot down all of your theories and you're going in circles," we'd hear no end about how unfair the forum is.

I'm working to keep this civil, highlighting common ground..
Gregory wrote:
GringoTex wrote:One head would be partly chopped in one cap.
No, I'm pretty sure Rock's head would be cut off in both the first and second one, though I'd have to break out the UK R2 again to see just what it looks like to be certain
Shreck's caps show a clumsy head space that is not typical of Sirk's mise-en-scene.
Well, I disagree completely. And I know I haven't provided an exhaustive, knock-down-drag-out analysis of Sirkian mise-en-scene (a tall order), but I've tried to be a lot more specific than these mere assertions you've made a couple of times here.
Indeed. If anything, Sirk's images allow the environment, the surroundings to speak just as much about the characters-- perhaps more, than that which comes from the characters mouths. The sterility of a doctor's office. The red of flowers or a sports car. The paintings in a background. The position of those in subservience or power vis a vis the speaker. Sirks wall,s decor, furniture, etc, speak of the mood and atmopshere. He's definitely not one for tight, suffocating closeups with nullified backgrounds-- which seems to happen in 2.0.

I was going through Written On The Wind yesterday (a film I am not a big fan of), and I have to say, even the 1.77 seemed forced to me.

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

#138 Post by GringoTex » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:35 pm

Gregory wrote:
GringoTex wrote:One head would be partly chopped in one cap.
No, I'm pretty sure Rock's head would be cut off in both the first and second one, though I'd have to break out the UK R2 again to see just what it looks like to be certain
ImageImageImage

Masked to 2:1. For me there's no question this is desirable to 1:37.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#139 Post by HerrSchreck » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:39 pm

To my eyes, those feel "functional" (though the middle shot is god- awful, as klunky as possible, particularly for a team as meticulous as Sirky/Metty) but not anywhere near as expressive as the academy caps.

User avatar
Bob Furmanek
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:59 am

#140 Post by Bob Furmanek » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:40 pm

HerrSchreck: The two films are "Abbott and Costello Meet the Keystone Kops" (2:1) and "Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy" (1:85.)

Regarding Cortez: I simply pointed out that by the early 90's, his memory was fading and, during our interview, he was a bit out of it.

I did hundreds of interviews for my book. Many, MANY times the stories I was told did not jive with the daily documentation from the set. Memories can be tricky things, and I believe the use of primary source materials to be much more accurate.

So far as trusting Universal, DVD producers, projectionists and telecine operators: I find for the most part, they are guilty of not doing their research. A projectionist or telecine operator gets a print or element and sees a 1.37 image. Great, it's full frame and that's how it's handled. The distributor looks at a film like MO and realizes that every version since the mid-50's has been full frame, including 16mm, VHS, syndication, etc. Great - they assume it's supposed to be that way.

What I'm doing which is different from the above is going back to the documented source of the information; original research looking at the various memos from the production and examining the exhibition trends within the industry at the time of the films release. In short: not relying on what's been done or written for the past 50 years, but instead seeing how it was done originally. There's a big difference.

As an example: many silent films were tinted and/or toned when first shown. However, for the most part, they've been seen in black and white since the 1930's. If you're restoring a film and replicating the original theatrical experience, you want to go back to how audiences first saw the film. That's my goal with documenting the early era of widescreen. So much of what's been done over the past 50 years is not what the filmmakers and distributors intended.

Gregory: please provide your source material for this statement:
We've already established that it took some time for theaters to be able to mask to widescreen and I think this is especially true for 2:1.
Quite the contrary. Masking for the various widescreen ratios was implemented from day one, and this is well documented in the trades.

I recently did some research in 1955 and the early months of 1958. The overwhelming majority of widescreen features were either 1:85 or 2:1. The use of ratios 1:66 and 1:75 were quite rare by 1955.

Regarding your issue with the top of heads getting clipped. Once again, that could be caused by a sloppy transfer or bad framing. Or - quite possibly - the filmmaker framed some shots that way for a specific purpose.

Quite honestly, I don't see how anyone could look at a film properly framed in the intended ratio and assume that is not what the filmmaker intended.
Last edited by Bob Furmanek on Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

#141 Post by GringoTex » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:44 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:To my eyes, those feel "functional" (though the middle shot is god- awful, as klunky as possible, particularly for a team as meticulous as Sirky/Metty) but not anywhere near as expressive as the academy caps.
As meticulous as they were, they were still probably composing with two ratios in mind, so clunkiness is inevitable.

I bet it looks best in a compromised 1.77:1 or something.

Bob- what do you know about Vera Cruz? Was it composed for academy or Vista Vision?

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#142 Post by HerrSchreck » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:49 pm

A genuine question to all involved here (because I don't have any history on this whatsoever)-- what do you guys, particularly Bob and Gregory, prefer for Written On The Wind?

I watched it last night with this discussion in mind, and caught a lot of chopped heads in particular.. and felt the ratio could benefit from opening up. But that could just be my tastes talking, as this was a '57 film..

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#143 Post by Gregory » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:50 pm

GringoTex: That confirms what I was saying, that part of Rock's head would be cut off in two of the three. (I didn't mean his whole head, of course.)

Bob, my source for that was going back to an earlier exchange with Jack, which you may or may not have read. He cited a poll in Box Office magazine showing that 58% of theaters polled said that they either had equipment for widescreen presentation or planned to have it by the end of the year. This doesn't include cinemas in other countries, and I suspect it might not have didn't include a proportionate number of little second-run joints. But even accepting 58%, that still leaves 42% of theaters where people were going to see it in academy.

Schreck: I didn't even want to open the can of worms on All that Heavan Allows and Written on the Wind, if we can't even all agree that MO looks poor at anything wider than 1.66. I also haven't done any comparisons with those two later films.

User avatar
Bob Furmanek
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:59 am

#144 Post by Bob Furmanek » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:57 pm

GringoTex wrote:Bob- what do you know about Vera Cruz? Was it composed for academy or Vista Vision?
I'd have to do some research, but it was released through UA and they were flexible so far as aspect ratios. They utilized 1:66, 1:75 and 1:85 through the fall of 1954.

Vera Cruz was shot in the early part of the year and was most certainly intended for widescreen. However, it was released late in 1954 in the anamorphic-squeeze of SuperScope at a ratio of 2:1.

In conclusion, it was intended for something a little less wide than 2:1, and it is definitely not standard Academy ratio.

User avatar
Bob Furmanek
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:59 am

#145 Post by Bob Furmanek » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:33 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:
Bob Furmanek wrote:
Winnie, go back to your honey jar.

The discussion is civil-- if you have nothing of value to say, don't troll.
HerrSchreck: what's with the condescending attitude?
Bob, needless to say, if someone from the "academy side" came on and simply said "Bob, seriously, could you just admit you're wrong? Schreck shot down all of your theories and you're going in circles," we'd hear no end about how unfair the forum is.
Complaining about the forum being "unfair" is a lot different than being rude to somebody who happens to agree with my point of view.

You went to great lengths posting information contradicting a statement I made about TV being black and white in 1953. I know there was testing and some experimental broadcasts at that time. The trades are full of information, and I've read much of it. (In fact, I work for CBS and I'm well aware of our companies early experiments in color.) But you took a general statement and attempted to throw some doubt on my expertise because of it.

Gregory did the same thing with a general statement I made about MO not being shown on TV for 20 years. Okay, maybe it was 15 but again, I was making a generalization which was not essential to the AR issue. It was simply to counter the rather ridiculous assumption that Sirk/Metty were composing for TV.

As a new poster attempting to set the record straight on this matter, I felt a general attitude from some of the regulars here that was somewhat condescending. That's why I needed to say something when those comments were made to Poohbear.

Gregory: posting a frame-grab from a tracking shot is not going to be very helpful in comparing the two ratios.
Gregory wrote:Bob, my source for that was going back to an earlier exchange with Jack, which you may or may not have read. He cited a poll in Box Office magazine showing that 58% of theaters polled said that they either had equipment for widescreen presentation or planned to have it by the end of the year. This doesn't include cinemas in other countries, and I suspect it might not have didn't include a proportionate number of little second-run joints. But even accepting 58%, that still leaves 42% of theaters where people were going to see it in academy.
That poll takes into account theaters converted (or planning to) by the end of 1953. I'm sure by time MO was ready to go by August 1954, those numbers were even higher.

And you feel that Sirk/Metty would still compose for the minority of viewers?

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

#146 Post by swo17 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:53 pm

Bob, with all due respect, it seems to me that those on the Academy side of the debate have conceded to many of your points, but you seem unwilling to concede on any of theirs. Not even the ones that don't necessarily damage your arguments. I think this could be contributing to their frustration.

I don't claim to have anything original to contribute to the debate, but it seems to me that valid points have been made on both sides, and that while certain aspects of the issue are cut and dry, there are others that clearly aren't, and likely never can be. Most notably, whether the film was primarily composed for Academy, or merely protected for exhibition in such, the Academy version exists. Some people prefer this version, feel that Sirk is an important artist, and feel that the Academy version is more typical of his mise-en-scene. Can you at least concede that a rational person might take the evidence you have brought forth as fact and still come to these conclusions, even if you prefer the 2:1 version for your own reasons? The Academy people have never argued that the 2:1 version should be suppressed, but rather that both should be available.

As for Schreck's comment to poohbear, he wasn't taking issue with the fact that he agreed with you, but with the fact that he was a) not contributing any evidence to support his position that you were right, and b) being a bit condescending himself.

In any case, I thank you Bob for your contributions on this subject. It has been very informative to read, even if we don't all completely agree with your interpretations of the facts.

User avatar
Via_Chicago
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:03 pm

#147 Post by Via_Chicago » Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:15 pm

Just a few brief thoughts:

I don't know how constructive comparing screencaps actually is. I say this because a film is, of course, a moving image, and its mise-en-scene is determined by how coalescing elements work together through this movement. To isolate a single frame, or multiple frames, from this movement is not particularly instructive. I'm sure there are a number of shots from the film that, when isolated, one could point to and say: "Yes, this proves that the film was composed for Academy/2.0!" The only real way to come to any kind of conclusion, even a largely unsatisfactory and unproveable one, is to compare the moving image back-to-back in multiple ARs. Let me provide an example (and one that I've mentioned on these boards before).

About a year-and-a-half ago, Fred Camper and I sat down with the last 35mm reel of Sirk's All That Heaven Allows. As with many of Sirk's films from this period (including Magnificent Obsession, obviously), the AR for this picture is in dispute. Now, Camper and I watched this same reel back-to-back-to-back in three different ARs: Academy, 1.66, and 1.85. To us, after watching the same images in all three ARs, the choice was very clear (we went with Academy). Sirk, to our minds, composed this film with Academy in mind, but with the awareness that it could and would be shown in any number of other ARs.

Now, as I've mentioned before, this is a highly subjective position. Nevertheless, Camper and I sat down and made the judgment call by comparing the same moving images in succession. We didn't arrive at different conclusions (indeed, it would have been interesting if we had) - instead, the two of us were in total agreement. To us, Academy ratio just looked right. Now Camper has seen this movie more times than all of us combined, but he was extremely happy with the opportunity that we gave him to make an informed decision about the AR, an opportunity he had not previously been afforded.

All I ask of the CC is that they provide us with two versions of Magnificent Obsession. It's clear to me that the only way to come to any kind of conclusion, whether in favor of 1.37 or 2.00, is to actually have the opportunity to compare the moving images of the film itself in both ARs. It doesn't matter if people don't agree - but this Our Way is the Only Way rhetoric, that is, that the film has to be presented in one AR or another, but not both (god forbid we acknowledge that there is an argument over this issue), is absolutely negative, backwards thinking. CC should be leading the charge on this issue, not stepping in line with the dunces at Universal.

mattkc
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:32 am

#148 Post by mattkc » Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:04 pm

Well, and to sort of answer HerrShreck about Written on the Wind, I know for a fact that Camper also thinks the Academy ratio is absolutely right for that film as well. And I too had the chance to see All That Heaven Allows in the Academy ratio, and it really did look correct.

User avatar
Bob Furmanek
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:59 am

#149 Post by Bob Furmanek » Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:04 pm

swo17 wrote:Bob, with all due respect, it seems to me that those on the Academy side of the debate have conceded to many of your points, but you seem unwilling to concede on any of theirs. Not even the ones that don't necessarily damage your arguments. I think this could be contributing to their frustration.

I guess I'm in the minority on this but I like to base my decisions on these issues with documentation. Up to this point, the only case I can see being presented for 1.37 is theory and conjecture relating to Sirk's mise en scene. The point made by Via Chicago about his viewing of "Written on the Wind" is interesting, but again it's someones personal opinion and preference. It would be nice to have something concrete on that point of view, from either the director or the studio.

But I agree, the only way to settle this issue is to present both versions on the DVD. That will certainly satisfy both camps. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

However, research is ongoing and I'll keep you posted on my progress...
Last edited by Bob Furmanek on Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

#150 Post by GringoTex » Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:15 pm

mattkc wrote:Well, and to sort of answer HerrShreck about Written on the Wind, I know for a fact that Camper also thinks the Academy ratio is absolutely right for that film as well. And I too had the chance to see All That Heaven Allows in the Academy ratio, and it really did look correct.
What possible motivation could Sirk have had for composing Written on the Wind and All That Heaven Allows fo Academy ratio?

Post Reply